Catholic school administrators and the inclusion of non‐Catholic students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present the understandings and administrative actions of six Catholic high school principals in relation to their administrative expectations of the admission of non‐Catholic students. Design/methodology/approach This paper involves interviews with six Catholic school principals from one Catholic school division in a Western Canadian province. The methodology chosen for this paper is grounded theory. Specific analytical processes are employed: open‐, axial‐, and selective‐codings. Findings The findings present four major themes with respect to the inclusion of non‐Catholic students in their schools: the school administrators' expectations; the significance of the preliminary interview; the ongoing relationship of the non‐Catholic student to the Catholic school; and points of confrontation with the Catholic school administration. Practical implications The paper provides some guidance with respect to the application and entrance procedures which non‐Catholic students should undergo before admission. It also points to the importance of providing information about the school's spiritual mission to non‐Catholic parents before their child is admitted to the school community. Originality/value The paper's originality lies in the findings offered in an area of education, which is not yet well researched.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".